No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
Consider this statement: the practice of science influences and is influenced by the civilization within which it occurs. Or again: scientists do not pursue their activities in a political or social void; like other people, they aspire to make their way in the world by responding to the values and social mechanisms of their day. Set in such simple terms, each statement probably would receive the assent of most scholars interested in the history of science. But there is need for debate on the nature and extent of the interaction between scientific activity and the civilization which incorporates it, as there is on the relations of scientists to the society within which they live. This essay seeks to make a contribution mainly to the second of these topics by taking a French scientist and academician of the eighteenth century and studying him and his family in the light of certain questions. At the end there will be a discussion relating those questions or themes to the wider debate. There is an associated purpose to the exercise: to present an account of the social origins and formation of Pierre-Jean-Baptiste Chomel (botanist, physician and member of the Academic des Sciences) which will augment our knowledge of this particular savant.
1 Pp. 86–184; hereafter the book is referred to as Lalain de Chomel.
2 A livre de raison was a register recording important events in the history of a family; it was bequeathed by one head to another.
3 de Chomel, Lalain, p. v.Google Scholar
4 The information in this section is taken from Lalain de Chomel, chapter 1.
5 The information in this section is taken from de Chomel, Lalain, pp. 49–66Google Scholar; also from Carrère, J.-F., Bibliotheque Litteraire, Historique et Critique de la Médecine Ancienne et Moderne, 2 vols., Paris, 1776, ii, pp. 522–4Google Scholar, and Eloy, N.F -J., Dictionnaire Historique de la Médecine, 2 vols., Liège et Francfort, 1775, i, pp. 644–5.Google Scholar
6 [A]rchives [N]ationales, [M]inutier [C]entral, LI-455, Contrat de Mariage, 3 déc. 1670; de Chomel, Lalain pp. 53–55.Google Scholar
7 L'Aubespine (1580–1653) had been Keeper of the Seals, 1630–1633.
8 de Chomel, Lalain, pp. 660–661.Google Scholar
9 A.N., M.C., XLIX–547, Inventaire Après-Décès de Jeanne Jobert, 17 déc. 1732 [referred to hereafter as Inventaire de J. Jobert], ‘Titres et Papiers’, 1.Google Scholar
10 Even so, Pierre-Jean-Baptiste was owed 54 022 livres by his parents in 1720 [Ibid., ‘Titres et Papiers’, 5].
11 Biographical details are from de Chomel, Lalain, pp. 86–158.Google Scholar
12 A comprehensive list of his publications in the Historic de l'Académie Royale des Sciences is: ‘Observations Chimiques sur les Eaux Minérales du Mont d'Or’, Année 1702 (1743), pp. 44–45Google Scholar; ‘Description de la Conyza Montana a Foliis Longioribus Ferratis Flore Sulphureo Albicante’, Année 1705 (1730), pp. 387–92Google Scholar; ‘Description du Limodorum Montanum Flore ex Albo Dilute Virescente’, Ibid., pp. 392–395; ‘Description de la Moschatellina Foliis Fumariae Bulbosae’, Ibid., p. 41; ‘Orobus Sylaticus Nostras Raii Sinops 191’, Année 1706 (1731), pp. 87–90Google Scholar; Année, 1708 (1709), pp. 59–61Google Scholar contains a résumé of a lecture he gave on the mineral waters of Bourbonnais and Auvergne; Année, 1707 (1708), p. 26Google Scholar has a note: ‘M.Chomela fait voir l'Artère Pulmonaire d'un Homme remplie de tubercules pierreux’; Année, 1703 (1705), p. 57Google Scholar has a note: ‘Monsieur Chomel qui a entrepris un Ouvrage sur toutes les Plantes d'Auvergne. a commencé par la description du Sapin, de la Conyza montana Foliis longioribus surratis, Flore sulphureo albicante et du Limodorum montanum, Flore exalbo, dilute virescente’; Anné, 1709 (1711), p. 51Google Scholar has a note: ‘M. Chomel a donne [la description] de l'Appium Pyrenaicum Thapsiae Facie’; Année, 1710 (1712), p. 79Google Scholar has a note: ‘Monsieur Chomel a donnée la Description du Tribuloides Vulgare Aquis Innascens’; Ibid. pp. 59–61 contains a report by Chomel entitled: ‘Sur les Arbes Morts par la Gelée du 1709’; Année, 1720 (1722), p. 53Google Scholar has a note: ‘M. Chomel a donné la description du Carthame’; Année, 1711 (1730), pp. 26–27Google Scholar contains an account of a cure effected by Chomel on two labourers temporarily blinded after working in a ditch; ‘Sur plusieurs eaux minérales de France’, Année, 1713 (1716), pp. 29–30Google Scholar; ‘Observation sue un Dépot Singulier Formé dans la Péritoine à la Suite d'une Couche’, Année, 1728 (1730), pp. 413–425Google Scholar; ‘Histoire d'une Epilepsie Singulière’, Année, 1737 (1740), pp. 49–51.Google Scholar
13 de Chomel, Lalain, p. 164Google Scholar has details on the marriage contract; the original was destroyed in the fire at the Hôtel de Ville in 1871.
14 The grand conseil was a sovereign court presided over in theory, although rarely in practice, by the Chancellor of France; it claimed to be the supreme court as its writ ran throughout the country.
15 The chambre des comptes was a sovereign court responsible for the royal domain and for a wide range of fiscal matters.
16 The cour des aides was a sovereign court specializing in cases concerning taxation.
17 The châtelet principally was a tribunal for Paris, although on certain matters its writ ran throughout most of France.
18 Sturdy, D.J., ‘A note on marriage contracts’, Newsletter of the Society for Seventeenth-Century French Studies, (1982), iv, pp. 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 A.N., M.C., XXIII–413, Inventaire Après-DécèsdeDenise Corps’, 11 août 1713.
20 The inventory lists about 400 volumes in 32 titles.
21 The following information is taken from the ‘Titres et Papiers’ listed in the inventory.
22 Jobert, Inventaire de J., ‘Titres et Papiers’, 2.Google Scholar
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid., ‘Titres et Papiers’, 11.
25 Ibid., ‘Titres et Papiers’, 12.
26 Ibid., ‘Titres et Papiers’, 14.
27 Ibid., ‘Titres et Papiers’, 7–10.
28 This part part of the inventory covers the first nineteen pages.
29 See appendix for details.
30 Inventaire de J. Jobert, ‘Une Maison a Vitry’.
31 Basic information is in de Chomel, Lalain, pp. 185–198.Google Scholar
32 Ibid., pp. 210–258.
33 A.N., M.C., XXIII–497: Contrat de Mariage, 14 déc, 1737.
34 The list of witnesses to the contract indicates that her family was closely involved in the business of libraire.
35 It was in the rue Culture Sainte Catherine and was rented at 1400 livres per annum.
36 A.N., M.C., XLIX–608, Inventaire Après-Décès de Pierre-Jean-Baptiste Chomel, 18 juillet 1740 [referred to hereafter as Inventaire de Chomel]; Archives de l'Academie des Sciences: Dossiers Biographiques: Chomel: Acte de Partage, 15 avril 1741 [referred to hereafter as Partage].
37 This is an underestimate as there are gaps in the information.
38 Although he transferred the charge to his son Jean-Baptiste-Louis in 1739, it has been included in the calculations, since he exercised the charge until shortly before his death.
39 This sum was still owed to him by Jean-Baptiste-Louis in 1740.
40 This is an estimate based on a 5% return.
41 Inventaire de Chomel, : ‘Titres et Papiers’, 7Google Scholar; Partage, , article 30.Google Scholar
42 Inventaire de Chomel, : ‘Titres et Papiers’, 15.Google Scholar
43 Ibid., ‘Titres et Papiers’, 22Google Scholar; Partage, , art. 43.Google Scholar
44 Inventaire de Chomel, : ‘Titres et Papiers’, 23Google Scholar; Partage, , art. 44.Google Scholar
45 Inventaire de Chomel, : ‘Titres et Papiers’, 24Google Scholar; Partage, , art. 45.Google Scholar
46 Partage, , arts. 14–16.Google Scholar
47 Inventaire de Chomel, : ‘Titres et Papiers’, 6Google Scholar; Partage, , arts. 20, 28Google Scholar; one of the rentes gave problems as the debtor, a vigneron, was insolvent.
48 Inventaire de Chomel, : ‘Titres et Papiers’, 2Google Scholar; Partage, , art. 24Google Scholar; Pierre-Jean-Baptiste drew rentes on Tontines for several of his children (Partage, , arts. 25–27).Google Scholar
49 Inventaire de Chomel, : ‘Titres et Papiers’, 9Google Scholar; Partage, , art. 34.Google Scholar
50 Partage, art. 35.Google Scholar
51 Ibid., art. 36.
52 Inventaire de Chomel, : ‘Titres et Papiers’, 17Google Scholar; Partage, , art. 40.Google Scholar
53 Partage, art. 41Google Scholar; the Inventaire de Chomel, : ‘Titres et Papiers’, 18Google Scholar, gives the figure as 8173 livres; it is probable that part of the sum had been paid off between the drawing up of the Partage on 15 April and of the inventory on 18 July and the days following.
54 Partage, , art. 52.Google Scholar
55 Ibid., art. 51.
56 Inventaire de Chomel, : ‘Titres et Papiers’, 26.Google Scholar
57 Partage, , art. 37.Google Scholar
58 Inventaire de Chomel, : ‘Titres et Papiers’, 27–28Google Scholar; Partage, , art. 6.Google Scholar
59 Inventaire de Chomel, : ‘Titres et Papiers’, 25Google Scholar; Partage, , arts. 48, 50.Google Scholar
60 An estimate based on 5% of the value of the charge.
61 A notional sum; there is no indication of the period covered by the 4985 livres owed to Chomel by the faculty.
62 A figure based on the known 800 livres from the Hotel Dieu, plus a notional 100 livres from other institutions.
63 A notional sum.
64 A notional sum.
65 Bluche, F., Les Magistrats du Parlement de Paris au XVIIIe Siècle, Paris, 1960, part 2.Google Scholar
66 Much interesting material on the subject is in Chaunu, P., La Mort a Paris, XVIe, XVIIe, XVI1Ie Siècle, Paris, 1978Google Scholar, and Vovelle, M., Mourir Autrefois, Paris, 1974.Google Scholar
67 A copy of the will is in Chomel's ‘dossier biographique’ in the Archives de l'Academie des Sciences.
68 Probably that of 1685 composed by Lully, libretto by Quinault.
69 Probably Médailles du Règne de Louis XV by Goddesche and G-R. Fleurimont; the first edition appeared in 1727; others in 1730, 1734, 1736; there is no indication as to which edition Chomel owned.
70 The first edition appeared in 1691, printed at the Hague; there were many later editions; that of Chomel was 1717.
71 A useful sketch of the background and careers of some scientists is provided by McClellan, J.E., ‘The Académie Royale des Sciences, 1699–1793: a statistical portrait’, Isis, (1981), 721, no. 264, pp. 541–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on the educational environment of the teaching of science see Taton, R. (ed.), Enseignement et Diffusion des Sciences en France au XVIIIe Siècle, Paris, 1964.Google Scholar
72 The author is engaged on a study of the social status of scientists in France from the 1660s to the 1750s.
73 Mousnier, R., La Stratification Socials à Paris aux XVIIe et XVIIIe Siècles, Paris, 1976, pp. 12–24.Google Scholar